1 CGHC010104202025 2026:CGHC:35953 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 377 of 2025 Smt. Sushma Banjare W/o Shri Gitesh Banjare Aged About 24 Years R/o. Village Bhatagaon, Police Station Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, District – Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Gitesh Banjare S/o Shri Dilip Banjare Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Bhandarpuri, Police Station Kharora, District- Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Baloda Bazar, District – Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 224/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, dismissed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant had instituted the application Under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and seeking maintenance amount of total 10,000/- per month from the respondent, on the ground that, the applicant and respondent are the husband and wife and they have solemnized their marriage according to Hindu law and ritual. After sometimes of marriage, the respondent, mother-in-laws, father-in- laws and sister-in-laws have started harassing her mentally and cruelty, on RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 account of demand of dowry. Out of their wedlock, the Applicant conceived but the Respondent and his family members had taunted her that the baby growing in the bomb is not of Respondent but of others. When the applicant resisted and asked for DNA then the respondent and his family members had pressurized the applicant to abort the pregnancy. Thereafter the applicant informed the incident to her parents then her brother took her to parental home. She had filed an application for grant of maintenance on the ground that she has no source of income instead the respondent is having sufficient sources of income, is not taking care of her ill health. 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicant. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has dismissed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. It is further submitted that the applicant was being ill treated and mentally harassed by the respondent, which made the applicant to live separately from the respondent and the same is sufficient ground for a wife to live separately. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 3 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar